Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Justatruthseeker]

The earth is slowing down, just very slowly.

Yah sure, if you say so. I notice even a top spinning in simple air friction and only touching on one point won't spin for 4+ billion years. You just go right ahead believing in planetary core perpetual motion machines. Best of luck to you in your pseudoscience!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yah sure, if you say so. I notice even a top spinning in simple air friction and only touching on one point won't spin for 4+ billion years. You just go right ahead believing in planetary core perpetual motion machines. Best of luck to you in your pseudoscience!

You don't think the rotation of the Earth might be helping it along at all?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't think the rotation of the Earth might be helping it along at all?

Not any more than the rotation of the winds on Venus has increased from 186 mph to over 249 mph in 6 years, yet the planet has not increased in rotational speed. Coincidentally with global climate change.
Venus' howling winds inexplicably get stronger - NBC News.com

Which coincides with the unexplainable (to them) source of energy being pumped into our atmosphere. Venus winds increasing, Earth storms increasing, a new source of energy detected, shall we call it what it is, a Birkeland current connecting Sun and earth?
NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That the further from the Sun one goes, the higher the winds become.
The Planet Neptune

And what is helping the earth to keep its rotational speed if it has a core rotating at a different speed? friction is friction. You DO NOT get faster rotation from a slower rotating body providing that rotation. An internal core could never rotate faster than the outer core if the outer core was imparting the momentum. I am sorry, but force does not work that way, regardless that you might want it to. It is called the Laws of Cause and Effect and the effect must be proportional to the cause. A constant one mph force applied to your car will not make this car move 2 mph, ever. it is called friction and drag coefficients.

The earth spins at 1070 mph, winds rarely above an average of 11 mph. Venus rotates at about 4 mph, yet has constant winds up to 249 mph. There is no way to tie rotation speeds of atmospheres to heat from the Sun or the planets rotation. The furthest planets have the highest wind speeds, so something besides rotation of the planet and heat from the Sun is driving these winds. Simple fact.

And since you have never actually observed the core of the Earth, or any planet for that matter, on what *fact* do you base it is rotating differentially from the planet? You may choose to *believe* it does contrary to perpetual motion mechanics if you want, that is your misinterpretation of science, not mine.

That new energy source you have discovered is an electrical connection between Sun and earth, heating the earth's core through the simple and well known force of electromagnetic induction and causing the earth's rotation.

Electromagnetic induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Induction heating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electromotive force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As orbits are caused by this force.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

The basis of the Lorentz Force.

The Lorentz Force

There is nothing mysterious about it, just simple electromagnetic force laws. No Fairie Dust need be applied.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Not any more than the rotation of the winds on Venus has increased from 186 mph to over 249 mph in 6 years, yet the planet has not increased in rotational speed. Coincidentally with global climate change.
Venus' howling winds inexplicably get stronger - NBC News.com

Which coincides with the unexplainable (to them) source of energy being pumped into our atmosphere. Venus winds increasing, Earth storms increasing, a new source of energy detected, shall we call it what it is, a Birkeland current connecting Sun and earth?
NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science


Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That the further from the Sun one goes, the higher the winds become.
The Planet Neptune

And what is helping the earth to keep its rotational speed if it has a core rotating at a different speed? friction is friction. You DO NOT get faster rotation from a slower rotating body providing that rotation. An internal core could never rotate faster than the outer core if the outer core was imparting the momentum. I am sorry, but force does not work that way, regardless that you might want it to. It is called the Laws of Cause and Effect and the effect must be proportional to the cause. A constant one mph force applied to your car will not make this car move 2 mph, ever. it is called friction and drag coefficients.

The earth spins at 1070 mph, winds rarely above an average of 11 mph. Venus rotates at about 4 mph, yet has constant winds up to 249 mph. There is no way to tie rotation speeds of atmospheres to heat from the Sun or the planets rotation. The furthest planets have the highest wind speeds, so something besides rotation of the planet and heat from the Sun is driving these winds. Simple fact.

And since you have never actually observed the core of the Earth, or any planet for that matter, on what *fact* do you base it is rotating differentially from the planet? You may choose to *believe* it does contrary to perpetual motion mechanics if you want, that is your misinterpretation of science, not mine.

That new energy source you have discovered is an electrical connection between Sun and earth, heating the earth's core through the simple and well known force of electromagnetic induction and causing the earth's rotation.

Electromagnetic induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Induction heating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electromotive force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As orbits are caused by this force.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

The basis of the Lorentz Force.

The Lorentz Force

There is nothing mysterious about it, just simple electromagnetic force laws. No Fairie Dust need be applied.

Woo!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Woo!

That's about your best answer to the problem, woo, because you have no solution to the problem that does not defy every scientific fact known. But that's ok, I know all of you believe in perpetual motion despite it's scientific impossibility without an outside force causing that rotation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

What is your cause? Well, ummm, its you see, ummm, well, the dust just started to rotate for some unknown reason. In every solar system, in every galaxy. A gravitational force which pulls equally from all directions does not impart rotational momentum.

grow up and learn some science for a change instead of using fairy dust to explain the universe.

Woo, such a factual denial. It's called avoidance, put the View Master down please.

Explain to me how the earth's core continues to rotate after 4+ billion years against friction. I would like to hear that explanation???

Oh, sorry, you already did. Woo.

 

[BarryDesborough]

That's about your best answer to the problem, woo, because you have no solution to the problem that does not defy every scientific fact known. But that's ok, I know all of you believe in perpetual motion despite it's scientific impossibility without an outside force causing that rotation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

What is your cause? Well, ummm, its you see, ummm, well, the dust just started to rotate for some unknown reason. In every solar system, in every galaxy. A gravitational force which pulls equally from all directions does not impart rotational momentum.

grow up and learn some science for a change instead of using fairy dust to explain the universe.

Woo, such a factual denial. It's called avoidance, put the View Master down please.

Explain to me how the earth's core continues to rotate after 4+ billion years against friction. I would like to hear that explanation???

Oh, sorry, you already did. Woo.

I'm sorry that reality isn't interesting enough for you. It's not my fault though.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sorry that reality isn't interesting enough for you. It's not my fault though.

It's quite interesting, and getting more and more so by the day as mainstream science just keeps confirming the Electric Universe in experiment after experiment. Probe after probe. Electrical currents connecting every planet and moon, Earth to Sun, it's an incredibly interesting time we live in. It's only too bad you are rooted in the past and unable to step into the future.

Very interesting times indeed:

So much for that neutral moon.

ARTEMIS Detects New Sources of Lunar Pickup Ions in Geomagnetic Tail | NASA Lunar Science Institute

Leaping Lunar Dust | NASA Lunar Science Institute

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind


So much for neutral space:

http://www.spacewx.com/Docs/TP2361.pdf

Spacecraft Charging

http://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/NASA-Generic/NASA-HDBK-4002.pdf

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

 

[Heissonear]

The "Electric Universe" has interesting physics about nature and the cosmos, but it is still Naturalism. It is a knowledge and view of the physical realm, and is distinctly different from the spiritual world.

Confusing componenys of the natural realm for aspects of the spiritual realm can occur and introduce error. Having its foundational premise from not understanding and knowing the spiritual realm to begin with. Missing the spiritual realm in our midst some may claim something natural to be spiritual, which introduces confusion and error.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The "Electric Universe" has interesting physics about nature and the cosmos, but it is still Naturalism. It is a knowledge and view of the physical realm, and is distinctly different from the spiritual world.

Confusing componenys of the natural realm for aspects of the spiritual realm can occur and introduce error. Having its foundational premise from not understanding and knowing the spiritual realm to begin with. Missing the spiritual realm in our midst some may claim something natural to be spiritual, which introduces confusion and error.

And yet I do not see energy as distinct from the natural world. I do not consider energy to be spiritual at all. Nor do I believe that this electrical activity in our brains is in any way different than that which courses amongst the universe and is a part of all things. This same energy that binds the atom, that makes us up. This same energy that is making it possible for us to have this discussion. So I guess it all depends on what you believe is spiritual about it? I see no conflict, mind is mind, whatever the scale.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are out to prove there is no existence above and beyond the physical.

Absolutely false. If there is something out there I would want to know. That is why I keep asking you to demonstrate that it exists.

For you it's just never going to be there.

Given you inability to demonstrate that it exists, it appears it isn't there for anyone.

The "based on what" and the "demonstrate to us" I mentioned earlier requires going to the Source,

No, it is asking you to present the evidence that convinced you it exists.

the Creator of all that we see and know. God is Spirit. God is above the natural. God is eternal, not of elements. His knowledge of you this moment and every moment is not shallow but as high as the farthest galaxies. He knows every detail about you. Every moment. HE IS THE ONE TO TURN TO, NOT WORDS OF MEN.

All of which are empty claims.

To then tell these Spirit taught individuals that God does not exist reveals clear unawareness of the higher life in our midst. How people can come up empty handed about the Spiritual Realm through Naturalism.

I am simply asking you to demonstrate that what you claim is true. Why is that such a problem?

 

[kellhus]

And yet I do not see energy as distinct from the natural world. I do not consider energy to be spiritual at all. Nor do I believe that this electrical activity in our brains is in any way different than that which courses amongst the universe and is a part of all things. This same energy that binds the atom, that makes us up. This same energy that is making it possible for us to have this discussion. So I guess it all depends on what you believe is spiritual about it? I see no conflict, mind is mind, whatever the scale.

Well, for starters, the electrical activity in our brains is biochemically generated charges and the energy binding atoms is strong nuclear force which isn't in any way electrical. So completely different forces right there lawl.

 

[Michael]

Well, for starters, the electrical activity in our brains is biochemically generated charges and the energy binding atoms is strong nuclear force which isn't in any way electrical. So completely different forces right there lawl.

The New York Times > Science > Image > Graphic: Separated at Birth?
SCIENCE ILLUSTRATED - They Look Alike, but There's a Little Matter of Size - NYTimes.com

The binding forces of atoms in space would be the same as they are here on Earth (whatever the strong force might be). There's no difference there. The current generation process might occur differently in spacetime than in our bodies, but the net result of that current generation in space are "structures" that resemble the structures and functions of a neuron, albeit on a much larger scale.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, for starters, the electrical activity in our brains is biochemically generated charges and the energy binding atoms is strong nuclear force which isn't in any way electrical. So completely different forces right there lawl.

And yet the iron molecule in your body is no different than the iron molecule in a rock. The water molecule in your body no different than the water molecule anywhere else. the sulfer molecule in your body is the same as the sulfer molecule anywhere else.

And there is no Strong Nuclear Force, which as soon as I get home I will gladly prove to you. By your own science!

 

[Loudmouth]

The New York Times > Science > Image > Graphic: Separated at Birth?
SCIENCE ILLUSTRATED - They Look Alike, but There's a Little Matter of Size - NYTimes.com

The binding forces of atoms in space would be the same as they are here on Earth (whatever the strong force might be). There's no difference there. The current generation process might occur differently in spacetime than in our bodies, but the net result of that current generation in space are "structures" that resemble the structures and functions of a neuron, albeit on a much larger scale.

Seeing a bunny in a cloud does not make the cloud into a bunny.

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, I responded in full in the Empirical Theory of God thread for you. I'll keep this thread focused on the topic.

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

Even *if* we didn't discover that light *is more scattered* than the mainstream 'predicted', it wouldn't support your *supernatural* constructs!

The dog and pony show is in the other thread.

The fact you can falsify some other theory does not provide support for your claims *empirically*.

Those claims have already been supported by mountains of empirical evidence.

You're still using a blatant double standard.

That is a flat out lie. I have presented empirical evidence to support the claims as have others which can all be seen in the other thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178/

In one instance you wish empirical cause/effect justification for the link between "awareness" and "God". On the other hand you require no cause/effect justification for you cosmology beliefs. Hypocrisy much?

The cause is expansion. The effect is redshift. Not that hard to figure out.

Science isn't limited to pure naturalism, and neither is the topic of God. Even your expectation of experimental support for God is dubious, since you personally don't require that from other fields of 'science'.

Why do you continue to lie? That is what I would really like to know. Do your eyes just close and reality is replaced by some personal fantasy of yours? Really? How can you so blatantly lie about people presenting evidence?

 

[Michael]

Seeing a bunny in a cloud does not make the cloud into a bunny.

It's a current carrying structure and it's structured like a brain. You're one to talk. You can't even *see* your invisible bunnies in the sky.

 

[Michael]

That is a flat out lie. I have presented empirical evidence to support the claims as have others which can all be seen in the other thread:

Ya, and all of your so called observational "evidence" went up in smoke in the Planck data set. Worse yet, you never showed any empirical cause/effect justification for claiming that your invisible friends even exist, let alone that they have any influence on even one single photon.

Pointing at invisible sky bunnies while ranting on and on about an affirming the consequent fallacy is not "empirical evidence".

 

[kellhus]

The New York Times > Science > Image > Graphic: Separated at Birth?
SCIENCE ILLUSTRATED - They Look Alike, but There's a Little Matter of Size - NYTimes.com

The binding forces of atoms in space would be the same as they are here on Earth (whatever the strong force might be). There's no difference there. The current generation process might occur differently in spacetime than in our bodies, but the net result of that current generation in space are "structures" that resemble the structures and functions of a neuron, albeit on a much larger scale.

Wow, what I said clearly went right over your head. And you don't seem to have any grasp of how spacetime and how nuclear forces work.

 

[kellhus]

And there is no Strong Nuclear Force, which as soon as I get home I will gladly prove to you. By your own science!

I look forward to you trying hahahah

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a current carrying structure and it's structured like a brain.

Brains don't carry currents. Do you even know what a nerve impulse is?

You're one to talk. You can't even *see* your invisible bunnies in the sky.

It has been seen for decades now. Please catch up.